Driverless Cars Will Make Intersections So Efficient It's Scaryhttp://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-car-intersection-2013-2/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:34:18 -0400Kevin Smithhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a624769bedd127d000010JoeSTue, 12 Feb 2013 10:39:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a624769bedd127d000010
Unfortunately, pedestrians aren't included in this simulation...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a30a7eab8ea4924000029David KnowlesTue, 12 Feb 2013 07:08:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a30a7eab8ea4924000029
An there are millions of deaths on our road world wide every year, there is indeed a problem that need to be fix.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a303becad045d73000015David KnowlesTue, 12 Feb 2013 07:06:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a303becad045d73000015
They force everyone to buy car insurance, just crank up the already near unaffordable premium but a few ground for a human driven vehicle and most people will not have a choice.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a2f996bb3f7ec59000015David KnowlesTue, 12 Feb 2013 07:03:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511a2f996bb3f7ec59000015
Probably by saying, Kitt turn around I want to check out that antique story or Kitt take a photo of that pretty blond in the pink top and find her on the internet. Kitt I am going to take a nap, wake me up 5 minutes before we get to the office.
Voice control is already in place in high end cars, and it will only improve over the next five year.
Another thing is that you could say, Kitt find me something interesting to do for the next five hours and it will take you somewhere random and interesting.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119fac46bb3f79375000042PsyTue, 12 Feb 2013 03:18:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119fac46bb3f79375000042
This will never happen, stupid idea, obviously not a deep thinker.
If something mechanically happens, out of the hands of the computer network, like a tire pops, would cause a huge massive collision regardless of how fast the network would be updated with what has just happened.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119d051ecad04393b000029Peter CaoTue, 12 Feb 2013 00:17:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119d051ecad04393b000029
Whenver I see such a photo in the front page cover, I know something messy is going on; what is it?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51199547eab8ea765f000007JJMon, 11 Feb 2013 20:05:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51199547eab8ea765f000007
Love those futuristic pot plants....I mean plant pots.
And when traffic engineers can actually plan traffic signals efficiently, then I will let the driver less car take over. Until, I trust nobody but myself to navigate the rat maze.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511991476bb3f7443c000017C.J.Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:48:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511991476bb3f7443c000017
Unless the technology prevents vehicles from amassing at intersections in a clusterf**k, the result will be vehicles lurching inch by inch toward each intersection. Otherwise, I guess the computers will send vehiclesoff into circling patterns, wasting time and gas so to be more "efficient."
Brakes and Transmission will suffer the most wear and tear.
Orwell Alert - What if Big Brother then gets the ability to disable your car in the garage in the event of a national emergency? Booby-crats always whine about not wanting to set off a "panic" (i.e. stay home and die)
NO Thanks!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51198d64eab8ea344800000ebig dealMon, 11 Feb 2013 19:31:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51198d64eab8ea344800000e
In india, already there are many intersections where traffic flows like this. Only difference is its not driven my computer.. purely manualhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51197e446bb3f7711900000fTHEYDON'T HAVETOMon, 11 Feb 2013 18:27:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51197e446bb3f7711900000f
Simply put if computer driven cars have very few accidents and human drivers have many more accidents your insurance will be more than you can afford unless you are Warren Buffet.
p.s. Computer driven cars will undoubtedly have 360 degree HD video recording and telemetry. No need for statements to the Copshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119632aeab8ea056d000007newworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 16:31:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119632aeab8ea056d000007
5*http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511962beeab8ea296a00000dnewworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 16:29:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511962beeab8ea296a00000d
Good one CB! The energy savings alone will stagger people when they flow through-same with savings in Capital. The average vehicle is parked most of the time so having a roaming fleet of autonomous vehicles of all descriptions will be an enormous benefit. Trillions in Capital can be reallocated. The benefits will be billions of gallons a day of oil equivalents @ $5./ a gallon immediately. Road trains are starting in Europe this year and Volvo is close on self driving 18 wheelers. Transport will be the first big one liberating millions from dangerous pointless lives of driving for money.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119527b69bedd8d6700001cjp32Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:20:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119527b69bedd8d6700001c
First, we should expect that they would NOT tune the passing down to within inches (at least not until each car sensed itself and broadcast its extents with all attached luggage). So, there should be several feet of leeway by default, and they would still see massive improvements.
The large array of sensors would also likely notice any overhanging luggage. If we've thought of this, we can expect that the engineers at Google, Audi, Mercedes, etc. have also thought of it. They recognize from the start that the problem is not the basic road navigation problem, it is handling all the edge conditions and odd events that they must do to succeed.
Again, just because we can't figure out the solution, does not mean that it cannot be done by the top professional engineers in the industry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51193b0d69bedd1e2e000016sweetdougMon, 11 Feb 2013 13:40:13 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51193b0d69bedd1e2e000016
'
'
'
'
I get the place where you come from, and I mean that in a good manner.
I don’t want to see people killed by driving/cars either, but at some point, we have to understand the idea of what it means to relinquish this control over our lives, as in liberty. Not just for driving, either.
We cannot make a perfect world.
This “It’s too dangerous.” mantra or versions of it, has been creeping into government for decades as a mean to create more and more legislation and rob us of liberty.
Sure it sounds innocent enough and would produce enough positive results, with regard to driving, but it’s always sold to us as better and safer.
How much control are we going to cede to government or those that wish to have control over us, for whatever reasons?
We could, to produce results of safety, immediately reduce the speed limits to 30 mph. Or 20. Or…
They want to be able to limit the size of our drinks for so-called health reasons!
I don’t care if they’re “right” or not! I want my @#$% large size sugary drink! ;) What a rebel, eh? Sounds kind of like tea and taxes, eh?
Where. Does. It. Stop?
How soon until we expand the notion of driving “under the influence of being human” and who will determine that? By-the-way, that phrase is so particularly creepy in an Orwellian flavour, you should trademark it!
There are those out there that think I am unable to determine what I should be eating, no matter my liberty and they want my “right” of free choice, limited, by their order, their initiative.
The tipping point will occur, when I know that tyranny is here, is when I can’t opt out.
And they will instigate this slow tyranny by making the situation so difficult for those that want to opt out that they just wear you down into comformity (with bureaucracy, foot-dragging, et cetera.) through out-right bans and taxation nudges.
“Certainly SweetDoug, King of All Muppets, you can drive the regular car, but we’re going to raise your insurance and put a governor on your car and… And… And…
We cannot create a controlled society and have it evolve into anything but slavery, if we continue this path.
It is not the control I mind, just the lengths. I don’t agree and neither does anyone, that the drunk driving should be legal.
And it’s not just cars. It’s the whole information/tech thing that’s coming in ways we can’t imagine.
Don’t get me wrong: I think this is coming. And more. And I and you will have no say in the matter, as it just will be done.
The problem is, is that there is NO discussion on this issue, or others.
I’m good if I’m in the driver’s seat, so to speak, and you’re takin’ orders from me and my administration, but I’m gonna bet you? Not so much.
•∆•
V-Vhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/511935efeab8eacc7f00000faMon, 11 Feb 2013 13:18:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511935efeab8eacc7f00000f
It's already happening, check the following video how driving in other countries looks like (with humans):
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511935d669bedd951f000041Trestle RiderMon, 11 Feb 2013 13:17:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511935d669bedd951f000041
The simulation looks like a cartoon of an average Chinese intersection.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51193429ecad04ff1b000006Never HappeningMon, 11 Feb 2013 13:10:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51193429ecad04ff1b000006
Watch the simulation. It's not the car behind the unpredictable car that is the problem. It is the car that is at the right angle to the unpredictable car. The model shows a seamless intersection where no cars have to stop. To produce such an effect cars would be passing within inches of each other. While the car behind an errant braking car will be able to compensate, the car which was planning on passing behind the errant braking car milliseconds after it cleared its path would not be able to compensate in time to avoid the accident. You can significantly slow down traffic to counter this but then you are no more effective than a traffic circle so what's the point.
In addition, for this to work, each car would have to know the dimensions of the other vehicles in the intersection. Hang around outside of a hardware store. I bet at least once an hour someone takes off with a board sticking three feet out of their trunk.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192bf0eab8ea286a000003jp32Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:35:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192bf0eab8ea286a000003
Actually not.
There would be a backup, but less likelihood of an accident than if some idiot brakes unexpectedly among a crowded set of human drivers.
With the self-driving and intercommunicating cars, the first car behind the unpredictable car (or errant pedestrian), notices it and brakes -- probably at least as efficiently as the human, at least according to current tests of auto-driving systems.
Simultaneously, the car that has to avoid the unexpected event notifies all the other surrounding cars of its predicament. They can also start braking instantly, even though they are 6 cars back in line and could not possibly see the surprise event.
That alone will prevent the kind of accordion-effect accidents that are so common in tight traffic. These happen because, even with marginally good following distances, the required reaction time becomes shorter and shorter for every car further back in the line, and often there is a fender-bebder or worse. If the cars in back only knew sooner that they had to brake... and with this system, they will.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192a17ecad04b305000016jp32Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:27:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192a17ecad04b305000016
One does not need a vest, the self-driving cars already have dozens of sensors. And they already work better than humans -- for one thing there are more sensors than just a pair of eyes and ears, and for another thing, the sensors can be split much wider apart for a much better stereoscopic view. Consider the stereo separation for visual sensors placed as wide apart as your car instead of your scull. Consider the reduced blind spots with sensors at the far corners of the car and on the roof, all locations where you have no eyes. Consider that there are ultrasonic and IR sensors in addition to visual sensors, so that the sensors aren't confused by fog...
Just because you cannot figure out how it could be done does not mean that no one else could figure it out.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511922e6eab8ea1954000014HmmMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:57:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511922e6eab8ea1954000014
When a major solar flare arrives, with a high enough intensity to knock out hardened nav satellites, it will most likely be strong enough to also knock out the computerized timing systems, break regulators and enhanced traction control in your car -- today. It's going to be a mess, but I'm assuming that driverless cars will have non-automated fail safes built in to account for a total loss of functionality, something that today's human-driven cars don't.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119226f6bb3f75b68000007cmonsterMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:55:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119226f6bb3f75b68000007
Especially if they're distracted while wearing their Google Goggles. Or perhaps we control their motor skills by hardwiring the goggles into the person's brain to control their motor skills and interface them with the driverless system.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192023eab8eaa74e000003clickbotMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:45:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51192023eab8eaa74e000003
I don't want to control you, I just don't want you to kill anyone while you are driving :-)
Your worldview seems unworkably absolute. It is already illegal to drive drunk, for example, whether you "want to" or not. This is because it is very dangerous to to that. If you agree that drunk driving ought to be illegal, we may continue to the next paragraph.
Assuming this technology can mature, driving "under the influence of being human" will be just as dangerous as driving drunk is today, and could morally be controlled in a similar way.
Nothing about this technology as stated will stop you from pulling over and buying strawberries or antiques or whatever you want on the side of the road. It will probably make it safer to do that!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51191b0e69bedd9056000035sweetdougMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:23:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51191b0e69bedd9056000035
‘
‘
‘
ACHF:
You’re obviously obfuscating and attempting to relativize the idea between choice of driving and the constitutional right to have weapon.
I get that.
clickbot:
While I should be a little more up on the constitutional issues than I am, this is going down the same road where the government, encroaching upon our rights and constitutional restrictions of the government, such as Obama-care has, can and will legislate everything.
What and where are the limits of government to intervene in my life?
You dream of what would be wonderful, perfection, if I may. Always a classic trait of a progressive and the left.
It will not happen, this perfection. It is a recipe for big government which always leads to tyranny.
At the most fundamental idea of this “driverless” car, is our loss of control in our world, our loss of freedom and liberty, to just go where we want, to be free.
Liberty is messy. Plenty want to have less of it, for themselves and for others in the name of safety.
Liberty is not safe.
I have no doubt that the gun-grabbers who seek to control and make the world better, will pile onto this idea, driverless cars, as they will willingly surrender their liberty further, for this idea of perfection.
Libertarians will rally, eventually, around this.
I have no doubt it will be people like you, who wish to have people like me controlled, penned in by such technology.
I await your vision of the world.
•∆•
V-Vhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51191a02eab8ea334100000fjymkataMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:19:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51191a02eab8ea334100000f
Holy Crap! I do not want to make a left hand turn in an autonomous car. That is some scary stuff!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511917e069beddfb4c000029jacknMon, 11 Feb 2013 11:10:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511917e069beddfb4c000029
Sorry google, Apple thought of this first. U lose again.
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-said-he-wanted-apple-to-eventually-make-a-car-2013-2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-said-he-wanted-apple-to-eventually-make-a-car-2013-2</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119136169bedd2044000003clickbotMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:50:57 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119136169bedd2044000003
Driving is not a constitutional right!
Your car already has to have two functioning headlamps, and (in California anyway), must pass a smog inspection every two years.
When this technology matures, most folks won't need to own a car anyway -- they'll just call one up on their smart (device), and it will arrive in front of their door within a 10 minute window.
You'll commute to work the same way -- the car will shuttle you two miles to the nearest transport hub -- no more living like zoo animals near transit stops.
I believe it will also revolutionize suburban (near-urban) living.
Of all the things to complain about, autonomous vehicles isn't one of them. I just hope the technology is really as far along as the press reports suggest. Can't wait!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190fe669beddd03d00000eACHFMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:36:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190fe669beddd03d00000e
Better get working on a consitutional amendment then. Something about "The right of the people to keep and drive vehicles shall not be infringed." It's too bad the framers didn't foresee the development of cars and computers. They were spot on about the technological developments in firearms and created the perfect document to manage that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190ed36bb3f70743000009Not rightMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:31:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190ed36bb3f70743000009
I will never trust a GoogleBot to drive me around. NOPE. NEVER. They cannot even make the Prius functionally dependent and reliable.
I am certainly not going to let a computer guild me through that mess. So you people so eager to kill yourselves will have to get through me first. This system will only work if EVERYONE is forced to use self-driving cars. In the land of the free, i don't think they will be able to force people to rely on this technology.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190a90eab8ea9c18000008sweetdougMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:13:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190a90eab8ea9c18000008
'
'
'
'
''
The question that nobody has asked, that is crucial to this "conversation" is one of liberty. It could start a civil war if it’s not resolved and we should have it NOW, instead of later.
"What if I don't want a smart car?"
How will I be able to drive on the roads without one?
They will HAVE to dictatorially, legislate the idea that you MUST have a smart car to drive on the roads.
They are coming and so is this legislation.
At what point, do we start resisting and what form will that resistance take?
•∆•
V-Vhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190a1869bedda92c000027panicattackMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:11:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190a1869bedda92c000027
I'm going to have a panic attack at every intersection. Fuck that. Not joining the club.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511907fd6bb3f7763300000ainsurance agentMon, 11 Feb 2013 10:02:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511907fd6bb3f7763300000a
They will force it by setting the cost of insurance for drivers of non-smart cars WAAAAYYYY higher than the cost of insurance for smart car drivers. eventually, it will just become too costly to drive yourself.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119060eecad04824200001danotherblackguyMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:54:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5119060eecad04824200001d
Haha! Fun fact about Martin Van Buren, he grew up speaking Dutch.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511905166bb3f76d31000009newworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:49:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511905166bb3f76d31000009
Enjoy clearing brush for the Countyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190502ecad042540000013HmmMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:49:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190502ecad042540000013
"How would you say "turn around because I want to check out that antique store we just passed"
I imagine that it work exactly as you asked the question. You don't think that Siri and Google Voice Search are really only intended for learning about Martin Van Buren or asking "who let the dogs out?", do you?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511904be6bb3f7ce2c000019newworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:48:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511904be6bb3f7ce2c000019
It will be just like it is now...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190483eab8ea020e00000anewworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:47:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190483eab8ea020e00000a
You are able to redirect at any point within the control parameters. Modern aircraft are like this in that the computer takes your inputs and complies within the envelope of non crashing possibilities. There is no direct, non computer monitored controls so steering would be by electric motor not twisting a wheel, etc. Important to keep in mind that the computer does not want to do anything itself so it is your safe driving assistant and you are enjoying the view.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511903bc6bb3f7f22a000015Neil SternMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:44:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511903bc6bb3f7f22a000015
What happens when a solar flare knocks out some navigation satellites and you're in the back seat sleeping like a baby?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511903a2eab8eaec0a00000dBHMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:43:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511903a2eab8eaec0a00000d
You just convinced me that this is never happening. All it takes is one car without this feature and it's all over. You will never be able to force people into this system. Bottom line, this is a solution without a problem.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190356ecad04f13d00000bnewworldorderMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:42:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/51190356ecad04f13d00000b
Definitely need to take all the old junk off the road and grind it all up. Too much retro in the national outlook- thttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/511900876bb3f78a26000015anotherblackguyMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:30:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/511900876bb3f78a26000015
Question-
In the driverless future, what if you just want to explore? To just go for a drive? Curious to hear your thoughts. My guess is you could set a "scenic route" beforehand or something like that, but do you know what I mean? How would you say "turn around because I want to check out that antique store we just passed", etc etc.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118ff4a6bb3f73924000013Printus MaximusMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:25:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118ff4a6bb3f73924000013
So now we have traffic signals again?
This whole article/video was about how traffic flows becomes more efficient when traffic lights are replaced by self-communicating cars and stopping is not required. Does every pedestrian now require a vest with a computer in it to become part of the network? Maybe we could hang a vest at each intersection and you put one on to cross it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118fcd06bb3f73922000001Yeah rightMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118fcd06bb3f73922000001
Uh, if the car can avoid another car it can avoid a person. Also, the cra will obey crosswalks and actually stop at red lights.
I'll trust a computer to drive WAY more than a person.
I can't wait.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118fc9aecad04df30000017SchmidtMon, 11 Feb 2013 09:13:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118fc9aecad04df30000017
In Russia, your life is a liability and not an asset.
It won't work in more "civilized" places. Lawyers will prevent it (one good thing about having powerful lawyers, surprisingly).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f94aecad043b28000036Printus MaximusMon, 11 Feb 2013 08:59:38 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f94aecad043b28000036
If so, I envision a lot of pedestrians becoming hood ornaments.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f93669beddf402000010Dean WormerMon, 11 Feb 2013 08:59:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f93669beddf402000010
And what are you going to say to the insurance company in an accident. "but officer, honestly I had a memory leak and a stack overflow. I was rebooting. Honest."http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f69beab8eaa167000011do!Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:48:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f69beab8eaa167000011
Who needs computers? This is the way they drive in Russia.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f4296bb3f76b0e00002cNever happeningMon, 11 Feb 2013 08:37:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f4296bb3f76b0e00002c
Reason one: classic vehicles. Reason two: brake override. No one will ever buy a vehicle that they cannot stop instantly. Once someone has the ability to brake in one of these intersections chaos ensues.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f3b26bb3f7220c000028Yeah rightMon, 11 Feb 2013 08:35:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f3b26bb3f7220c000028
Oh yes it will. The cars won't be talking on their phones, screwing with the radio, putting on makeup, and eating while driving with their knees.
I can't wait.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f330ecad04531f000010TazzMon, 11 Feb 2013 08:33:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5118f330ecad04531f000010
Yea right .... Will never happen.